Poll: Boycott Rage

[CM156_v1legacy]

$1 is still better than $0. The principle is a sound one, the technical details can be modified.

Not by much. It would do little. And it might have Gamestop more agressivly sell used copies.

As I said, the two legal doctrines are opposed. But there is one thing they agree on: If a single item sells for less than a few hundred dollars, it's not worth messing with.

So yeah, as I said, Droit de suite doesn't really apply to that. It's most concerned with single made items that sell for quite a bit on resale. Further, should they get money on a resale if they no longer make the game new? Or if the company has shut down?

Unless you're sugguesting we addopt a sort of doctrine that goes against both of these ideas.

Though if a single copy of game was sold for hundreds of millions of dollars by the developers, I can hardly see them complaining about it, especially when the publishers and retailers get nothing from it. Each time the game changes hand, the royalty is just frosting on the cake.

Now you're just being silly.

Or better yet, developers should just auction off their IP rights to the publishers and be done with it.

Are you being facetious?

 

[DracoSuave]

As far as the topic goes, people need to remember this:

Investors > Consumers.

Since we as a group will never organize anything meaningful, we cannot change the way companies will treat us. A large majority of gamers are heavy corporate tools, with all the integrity of a house of cards in a windstorm. As such, they'll fold on their position the moment the targeted game is released.

Wrong.

No matter how much importance a company puts on investor interest over consumer interest, if the cunsumers do not buy into the product, the product loses money, and the investors stop investing. Pleasing the investor means turning a profit.

Consumer disinterest has caused many franchises and games to fail.

 

[WaruTaru]

$1 is still better than $0. The principle is a sound one, the technical details can be modified.

Not by much. It would do little. And it might have Gamestop more agressivly sell used copies.

As I said, the two legal doctrines are opposed. But there is one thing they agree on: If a single item sells for less than a few hundred dollars, it's not worth messing with.

So yeah, as I said, Droit de suite doesn't really apply to that. It's most concerned with single made items that sell for quite a bit on resale. Further, should they get money on a resale if they no longer make the game new? Or if the company has shut down?

Unless you're sugguesting we addopt a sort of doctrine that goes against both of these ideas.

Though if a single copy of game was sold for hundreds of millions of dollars by the developers, I can hardly see them complaining about it, especially when the publishers and retailers get nothing from it. Each time the game changes hand, the royalty is just frosting on the cake.

Now you're just being silly.

Or better yet, developers should just auction off their IP rights to the publishers and be done with it.

Are you being facetious?

Does it matter? Law aside, why shouldn't the developers be paid for delivering entertainment services? What is so bad about that?

 

[goldenheart323]

Yes, used games are KILLING the games industry. While we're at it, those evil libraries need to be dealt with too. Does anyone know just how horrible they are to both the movie and book industry? I shudder at the thought.
/sarcasm

...In fact, developers aren't entitled to [part of used game sales] any more than Dell is entitled to some of the money from the monitor I sold at my garage sale. ...

The used market is a legitimate market and as such it is the game industry that is in the wrong for trying to destroy it.

...

Crono, that can't be said enough.
----------------------------------

What makes the video game industry so special that consumers should not be able to buy used media? If I buy used books and used movies, why should I have to buy all of my games new?

Nothing. The same goes for any industry as well really. You aren't the customer of the publisher of that book or movie... you are the customer of the person or company you bought that movie or book from. If you buy a used book and find missing pages, you can't call up Pearson or Penguin or whatever and complain because you aren't their customer. It just so happens that the used industry for video games is much larger than say books or movies, and thus in turn, much more harmful.

If you don't want to buy your games new, then more power to you. Just know that you aren't supporting the industry, nor do publishers or developers have ANY obligation to do ANYTHING for you, as you aren't their customer.

The problem with your "missing pages" analogy is that they aren't missing because of the previous owner's actions. They're missing because the company ripped them out intentionally so you can't enjoy them.

Who's calling up companies and complaining of defects with their used game/movie/book??? No one's asking the companies to do ANYTHING for them. They're not asking for warranty work, or tech support, or game strategies. They're asking that they NOT take the action of removing parts of their product.

Your assertion that the used sales are more harmful to the games industry than it is to movies or books is irrelevant. There is no law that changes consumers' rights if the used market exceeds X% of all sales.
You have made me curious though. Have you seen any statistics that showed the percent of used game sales compared to new sales, or are you just going off anecdotal evidence? To support your claim, those statistics would also have to show the same figures for movies and books so we know for a fact how used game sales compare to used movie or book sales. I'm curious to see hard figures. If one statistic showed 60% of all game sales were new ones, that would have no context and thus be meaningless. Who knows, maybe used movie sales are 65%. (Again, it's irrelevant to consumer rights. I'm just curious what the actual numbers are.)

---------------------
Really, you pro-company people should be praising $55 used game prices. What better way to deter used game sales than having the used copy cost almost the same as a brand new one? ;-P

 

[2012 Wont Happen]

I buy games used. I would like to know how that is wrong.

I have a feeling I am going to be insanely wrong here, but developers don't get the full money to them if a game is bought used do they? I remember reading that a bunch of times on here once, I could have simply misread that though.

OT: No I won't boycott RAGE because of what they're doing. Games looks pretty sweet and I have no problems paying full price for it rather than used.

One copy of the game is sold. You need that disc to play the game. A player plays the game and gets bored of it. They resell it at a discount. Their one copy of the game is transferred to another player who is now the only person who can use that one copy of the game. At all times only one player can use the game. The publisher only gave out one copy of the game. They were compensated for one copy of the game.

 

[CM156_v1legacy]

$1 is still better than $0. The principle is a sound one, the technical details can be modified.

Not by much. It would do little. And it might have Gamestop more agressivly sell used copies.

As I said, the two legal doctrines are opposed. But there is one thing they agree on: If a single item sells for less than a few hundred dollars, it's not worth messing with.

So yeah, as I said, Droit de suite doesn't really apply to that. It's most concerned with single made items that sell for quite a bit on resale. Further, should they get money on a resale if they no longer make the game new? Or if the company has shut down?

Unless you're sugguesting we addopt a sort of doctrine that goes against both of these ideas.

Though if a single copy of game was sold for hundreds of millions of dollars by the developers, I can hardly see them complaining about it, especially when the publishers and retailers get nothing from it. Each time the game changes hand, the royalty is just frosting on the cake.

Now you're just being silly.

Or better yet, developers should just auction off their IP rights to the publishers and be done with it.

Are you being facetious?

Does it matter? Law aside, why shouldn't the developers be paid for delivering entertainment services? What is so bad about that?

Here's a tip: Don't bring up the law if your next point is to disregard it. Even under the doctrine that isn't law in the USA, which you supported, it still is against your point. But I'll play ball

Alright. Legality aside, we must move to ethics. Which is a fun little realm if, as you said, we are going outside the law.

Ethicaly, there's nothing different then buying a game used then there is reading a book at the library. Or buying any form of media second hand. We've had that for years. Those have been deemed ethical and fine by practically every legal and ethical authority

Because a game industry prices differently, it does not change the law, nor ethical implacations behind it. If you are saying it's unethical to use a product without paying the origional content creator, then you must also be against rental, libraries, used book stores, ect.

They were paid when the game was sold the first time.

Spoiler: If your product is sold used

There is no law that changes consumers' rights if the used market gets too large

 

[Anah'ya]

I buy games used. I would like to know how that is wrong.

Nothing wrong with that. As long as you accept that you might be buying something used and incomplete.

 

[WaruTaru]

Here's a tip: Don't bring up the law if your next point is to disregard it. Even under the doctrine that isn't law in the USA, which you supported, it still is against your point. But I'll play ball

Alright. Legality aside, we must move to ethics. Which is a fun little realm if, as you said, we are going outside the law.

Ethicaly, there's nothing different then buying a game used then there is reading a book at the library. Or buying any form of media second hand. We've had that for years. Those have been deemed ethical and fine by practically every legal and ethical authority

Because a game industry prices differently, it does not change the law, nor ethical implacations behind it. If you are saying it's unethical to use a product without paying the origional content creator, then you must also be against rental, libraries, used book stores, ect.

They were paid when the game was sold the first time.

Spoiler: If your product is sold used

You can have the legal point. I'm sick of arguing legal points over and over and over again. Look at some of my previous posts.

If the price of having all creators duly credited (money wise) is to outlaw rentals, libraries and used bookstores, then so be it. Have you seen these self-destructing E-books? They are a step in the right direction. The book industry is getting smarter and refused to let themselves be screwed any longer.

They were paid when the product was sold first-hand, and the developers provided the first-hand buyer with exactly what they advertised: A Full Game for Full Price. Nothing wrong there. They have performed to the satisfaction of the first-hand buyer. They got everything that developers said were on the disc.

If a second-hand buyer comes along and enjoys the same thing without paying a single penny to the developers, that is unethical, just like piracy. They are both doing damage to the creator's livelihood, but somehow one of them is allowed because it is legal, and they are making a profit out of it. If that is so, developers should restrict their content to those who actually paid them for their performance.

Digital media is also harming the creative arts. If everything was only available "live", you wouldn't have these entitled-brats claiming some form of ownership over their performance and say "I can sell it cause its mine". The seller did not do the performance, yet they are allowed to sell them for profit without funneling some of it back to the performers. The performers depend on selling "new experience" to the consumers. And if a consumer is experiencing such "new experience" without the performers getting paid, they just lost a customer. If you say "they wouldn't have wanted to experience it anyway", sure, as long as no money changes hand, no harm is done. But when they DO want to see the performance, and they are willing to pay for it, and that money doesn't go to the performers, that is just wrong. Whether piracy or selling it used, they are both damaging the industry. And game developers are saying the used game sale is much worse than piracy.

 

[2012 Wont Happen]

I buy games used. I would like to know how that is wrong.

Nothing wrong with that. As long as you accept that you might be buying something used and incomplete.

There is no reason to punish people who buy the game used. People who buy your games used are people who become faithful buyers of your products. That's how I got to the point where I'll shell out over 70 dollars to pre-order Skyrim: buying Morrowind used. It's also how I became a loyal fan to Lionhead. A used copy of Fable I picked up at Gamestop.

When developers penalize legitimate used buyers, they ostracize a demographic. It all sort of reminds me of "my friend". There are devs that "my friend" would rather pirate from than buy from because of their business practices. However, when devs treat their consumers well, "my friend" is willing to pay for their used games, try them out, and shell out seventy dollars of his hard-earned dosh to buy their future games brand new if he likes it.

 

[Lyri]

This 'buy it new to play things that would have been included otherwise!' crap needs to end. im sick of game companies thinking that they can do this to us, as consumers. we dont have to put up with this bull anymore. WE decide whether or not their game gets bought. WE decide to put money down for a title they release. they dont get to decide that for us. im tired of the companies thinking that they can get away with this, just because they assume we will always buy their games no matter what.

If we allow this to continue, what will happen to games like Skyrim? do you want to only be able to access 15 quests if you buy it new? or to a new extreme: you can only dual wield if you buy it new?

Dumb.

It's a tunnel system and you need to download it anyway, so it's clearly not a vital mechanic. It's more or less a fast travel system.
Also if you have no internet connection to your console or PC you still can't use it. It's not a massive deal, WE the consumer are making it into one though.

It's not like they cut out a great big chunk of the game and told you that the ending was purely for people who buy it new.

I wish the Escapist would stop being a crowd of mindless sheep sometimes.

 

[JohnnyDelRay]

I wonder how many people supporting this used game cutting would complain if you bought a movie second hand with a chapter slashed out of it. Because you're not supporting the movies industry either.

Or tracks missing from a music CD. In these cases, these are all not the "physical media" you are paying for, but the work going into it. This has NEVER come up in the past, only NOW, because of some greedy developers, has this insane idea entered people's heads. Worried about a middleman making money off your game from used sales? Why don't we track down every single person selling on amazon, ebay, or any auction site, any cash converters, pawn shop, and demand dollars from them then?

Support the games industry by buying those whose doctrine you believe in, hence why I purchased two copies of The Witcher 2. And hence why I won't be buying Diablo 3, Rage, or Battlefield 3. Unfortunately, people who are on the side of id, Blizzard and EA won't have to worry, because despite the number of people complaining about it, they are all still the top-selling titles on amazon anyhow. So in the end, the joke's on everyone else.

 

[CM156_v1legacy]

You can have the legal point. I'm sick of arguing legal points over and over and over again. Look at some of my previous posts.

Thank you, dear reader.

If the price of having all creators duly credited (money wise) is to outlaw rentals, libraries and used bookstores, then so be it. Have you seen these self-destructing E-books? They are a step in the right direction. The book industry is getting smarter and refused to let themselves be screwed any longer.

Get rid of libraries?

Spoiler

That's gonna win you some supporters.
Tell me, do you have a favorite author? Did you buy his or her book out of the blue? If you're like me, you were given it second hand.

They were paid when the product was sold first-hand, and the developers provided the first-hand buyer with exactly what they advertised: A Full Game for Full Price. Nothing wrong there. They have performed to the satisfaction of the first-hand buyer. They got everything that developers said were on the disc.

If a second-hand buyer comes along and enjoys the same thing without paying a single penny to the developers, that is unethical, just like piracy. They are both doing damage to the creator's livelihood, but somehow one of them is allowed because it is legal, and they are making a profit out of it. If that is so, developers should restrict their content to those who actually paid them for their performance.

Are you really, REALLY going to compare used salse to piracy? Really?

First, someone else made the point better than I

One copy of the game is sold. You need that disc to play the game. A player plays the game and gets bored of it. They resell it at a discount. Their one copy of the game is transferred to another player who is now the only person who can use that one copy of the game. At all times only one player can use the game. The publisher only gave out one copy of the game. They were compensated for one copy of the game.

With used sales, there is one copy for every one copy sold. With piracy, there are thousands.

For one, used sales puts money into the market. Look at Gamestop's 2010 report. They bought $1 Billion in goods, and $750 Million of that went towards purchasing a new game or item in that ransaction

And game developers are saying the used game sale is much worse than piracy.

By extention, that means that if person a pirates a game rather than buys used, the industry is somehow better off. Here's a hint. It's not.

Further, comparing piracy to used sales for the sole reason that the net result is the same is sorta like comparing use of leathal force in the matter of self defense to just shooting someone because you feel like it. Not to that degree, no. I won't claim that But it's the same thought process.

I'm not saying they can't put in extra content. Cerberus Network was a good idea, if a bit overpriced. They gave something extra to those who got it new, and even some free DLC. I see that with Rage, which is why I'm not bothered. It's a small little thing that doesn't bother me.

This great man sums up my views [http://www.destructoid.com/the-jimquisition-the-used-game-solution-182499.phtml]

As for me, I'm headed to bed. Night!

 

[Anah'ya]

There is no reason to punish people who buy the game used. People who buy your games used are people who become faithful buyers of your products. That's how I got to the point where I'll shell out over 70 dollars to pre-order Skyrim: buying Morrowind used. It's also how I became a loyal fan to Lionhead. A used copy of Fable I picked up at Gamestop.

When developers penalize legitimate used buyers, they ostracize a demographic. It all sort of reminds me of "my friend". There are devs that "my friend" would rather pirate from than buy from because of their business practices. However, when devs treat their consumers well, "my friend" is willing to pay for their used games, try them out, and shell out seventy dollars of his hard-earned dosh to buy their future games brand new if he likes it.

They are not punishing the "used" buyer. They are further rewarding people who buy new.

Everyone screams and kicks and shouts "REWARD US FOR GIVING YOU OUR MONEY!" -- but when something comes around that actually does that (by adding additional content that you would not even miss if it wasn't there), the same people cry "YOU ARE EVIL AND GREEDY, I WILL NO LONGER BUY FROM YOU! RARRRGH!"

If you can't afford new games, buy used and add the content after. If you can't afford new games and then can't afford to add the other content and figure this to be un-fucking-playable, buy cheaper alternatives (Indie games). If you cannot afford anything, don't buy it.

People are entitled to food, water and shelter. But we are not entitled to entertainment and luxury titles. And like it or not, but games are luxury titles.

Not going to touch a comment on your "friend" with a 10 foot pole. It would not go down well.

 

[aescuder]

[not on-topic] How is this thread larger than Jim Sterling's video on the topic of Boycott? There is certainly better points of conversation to be had there. I guess rage is the bread and butter of internet discussion.

 

[WaruTaru]

Tell me, do you have a favorite author? Did you buy his or her book out of the blue? If you're like me, you were given it second hand.

You know what, the first book I actually bought was a pirated version of said book. And when I've read everything the author has produced, I went out and bought the original copy to replace the pirated version. So no, I am proud to say I have never had second-hand stuff.

Are you really, REALLY going to compare used salse to piracy? Really?

First, someone else made the point better than I

One copy of the game is sold. You need that disc to play the game. A player plays the game and gets bored of it. They resell it at a discount. Their one copy of the game is transferred to another player who is now the only person who can use that one copy of the game. At all times only one player can use the game. The publisher only gave out one copy of the game. They were compensated for one copy of the game.

With used sales, there is one copy for every one copy sold. With piracy, there are thousands.

For one, used sales puts money into the market. Look at Gamestop's 2010 report. They bought $1 Billion in goods, and $750 Million of that went towards purchasing a new game or item in that transaction

I have said it again and again and again and again. You are not buying goods. You are buying an entertainment service. Please, answer the four questions I posted in this thread and come back to me.

If Gamestop spent 1 billion buying goods, good for them. But that doesn't stop them from screwing developers. See the kind of shit retailers can pull when developers try to bypass them? And they say the market is too competitive for them. Isn't competition part of the reason for an open market?

And game developers are saying the used game sale is much worse than piracy.

By extention, that means that if person a pirates a game rather than buys used, the industry is somehow better off. Here's a hint. It's not.

Put it this way:
Piracy = never paying for games, ever.
Buying used = willing to pay for games.
Big difference. The pirates will NEVER pay for a copy whereas the used buyer are willing to part with their cash for the game. By extension, if they choose the used version, the developers are down 1 customer.

Further, comparing piracy to used sales for the sole reason that the net result is the same is sorta like comparing use of leathal force in the matter of self defense to just shooting someone because you feel like it. Not to that degree, no. I won't claim that But it's the same thought process.

I can't even begin to see how your analogy applies, but I'll try to humour you here.

Use of lethal force for self defense = First day DLC, Content locking, buying a pass key. They are doing something to oppose retailer's underhanded shit. Provocation and what not.
Shooting someone cause I feel like it = Steam. They completely get rid of retailers. They fired the first shot. Well done to them.

Net process is reducing the effects of retailers on profit. Both ways achieve the same effect, except Steam does it better. So yeah, screw retailers. All games should go down the digital distribution path.

I'm not saying they can't put in extra content. Cerberus Network was a good idea, if a bit overpriced. They gave something extra to those who got it new, and even some free DLC. I see that with Rage, which is why I'm not bothered. It's a small little thing that doesn't bother me.

Different wording, same stuff. As long as developers are paid, the good is served.

Edit: I actually agree with what Jim says - "make the game worth $60 or fuck off".

 

[Lyri]

Everyone screams and kicks and shouts "REWARD US FOR GIVING YOU OUR MONEY!" -- but when something comes around that actually does that (by adding additional content that you would not even miss if it wasn't there), the same people cry "YOU ARE EVIL AND GREEDY, I WILL NO LONGER BUY FROM YOU! RARRRGH!"

If you can't afford new games, buy used and add the content after. If you can't afford new games and then can't afford to add the other content and figure this to be un-fucking-playable, buy cheaper alternatives (Indie games). If you cannot afford anything, don't buy it.

People are entitled to food, water and shelter. But we are not entitled to entertainment and luxury titles. And like it or not, but games are luxury titles.

Not going to touch a comment on your "friend" with a 10 foot pole. It would not go down well.

+10 respects!


Alternatively people should go
here [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/9.307253-Rage-Get-over-it]

This guy makes some genuine points on the issue at hand.
*cough*

 

[Snotnarok]

They're not doing anything exactly wrong here, they just want to be paid for the game they made and if you're buying it used, you're not paying them, you're paying gamestop.

It's a simple choice, want the extra features? Buy it new. It's a lot like buying the special edition to a game, are you going to boycott them for not giving you that stuff too? You get what you pay for, that's how a lot of things work.

That's how I see it anyway. It's not even about taking sides really, you're simply not paying the guys who made the game so why should they care what you want? So you want to help them and get your game features well I think buying it new is for you. Besides you get shrink wrap to open and who doesn't enjoy opening a new game?

Also, it's not like they're stripping out the ability to play or save more than one file.

as i understand it, its not extra stuff they're taking out, its a whole chunk of the single player

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/112247-Rage-Cuts-Single-Player-When-You-Buy-It-Used

case you missed what the fuss is about.

No I'm aware, but again, you're not giving money to the guys who made it when you buy used, so why do you expect them to care? I'm aware this is you know sort of a debatable thing but I've done a lot of jobs where the other party just felt like they didn't want to pay but they expected me to send the files anyway. Guess who didn't get what they wanted? Neither party.

 

[scott91575]

Don't buy a game that I want just so people can buy it used?
Ya no thanks. I buy all of my games new so this is really no big deal for me at all...

Do you sell your used games, because if you do then you are the person this directly affects the most. As I stated earlier, this will lower the prices people will be willing to pay for used game directly from a seller (the overall demand price will pretty much stay the same...it makes the buyer pay 2 different people). Sure, there will be some people not aware this is going on right now, but if this spreads you can pretty much knock off $10 from the price you sell games for. Buyers in the used game markets have pretty set prices, and don't buy until it reaches that price. They will factor in the extra money it takes to buy the content when they buy used games. The buying of used games won't change much. It just shifts where there money goes. This extra money does not suddenly increase what buyers of used games are willing to pay, but it does change how much someone can sell their used games for.

There might be a slight uptick in prices for the buyer since this will somewhat affect supply, but the demand curve will stay pretty static while the supply curve will only shift slightly (that will increase price a little bit, and of course lower the amount of used game sales by a small amount).

All this does is take a money right out of the pocket of the seller. Buyers of used games will not be hurt very much at all. It just makes them spend the same amount but send the money to two different entities.

 

[Pedro The Hutt]

Tell me, do you have a favorite author? Did you buy his or her book out of the blue? If you're like me, you were given it second hand.

You know what, the first book I actually bought was a pirated version of said book. And when I've read everything the author has produced, I went out and bought the original copy to replace the pirated version. So no, I am proud to say I have never had second-hand stuff.

Surely you'd buy a second hand copy if the game, film or book was out of print right? Because then the creators aren't intending to make more money out of it one way or the other.
And you completely dodged CM156's point that you seem to very clearly insinuate that you'd just love to see an end to libraries since it lets people use films and books without paying the original authors.

And for that matter, what about used cars? Should those go too since you're buying a product without handing a penny to the original creators? Or is that buying a transportation device service rather than a product? =p

And actually, I wonder how you feel about lending people games, or heck, passing a person a game, book or film after you're done with it? Do you also feel like some overzealous copyright guardians that borrowing, sharing, lending or passing on a product shouldn't be done as well, that people should just buy their own copy if they want to experience that title?

And I really wonder when films and games stopped being products and started being "services". I liked the days when a person was free to do what he wanted with a product he purchased.

 

[Kieran Chakravorty]

Voting with our wallets and complaining in an educated manor helped defeat the worst of the RIAA, DRM and brought Naptser back. Jim Sterling ftw!